Talk:Girl Meets Jexica/@comment-25009425-20160611085529/@comment-25009425-20160613022113
I didn't even know what was the exact question on penguins because sometimes I couldn't understand right away what they are saying (since I'm not native english speaker) and when this happens I usually come back to hear it again and I usually end up undestanding, but this time I didn't do it because didn't think I had to in order to figure out the point. And now that I've told me what he actually asked I still think the point Mr. Matthews was trying to make is that: you should be studying rather than doing something you enjoy. I strongly disagree with that. Not that possessing useless knowledge is a bad thing, it's not, it's nor god or bad, but I would really rather pay attention to something that brings me joy than to focus on useless knowledge just for the sake of being brainy... just because the society says I'm supposed to. And I'd say that's the reason I love teen shows in the first place. I used to be so psyched about stuff, I was into fusion jazz, into prog rock, into classical music, mainly Bach but even Schoenberg I listened... the professor told me to read Hannah Arendt so I had to buy the book for 80 bucks, almost bought a book by Norberto Bobbio in spanish because he had told me to read it and I couldn't find it in my own language... but then I thought to myself... if what makes me happy is listening to Big Time Rush, watching to Disney's shows and reading Hunger Games, why was I wasting my time listening to Schoenberg? Do I need that to gradute from my law school or anything else? To take care of my house or personal issues? To exercise my rights and fulfill my duties? Is this knowledge important to me in any way? Or is it just to be erudite? Just to be better than the others? Was I really interested in serial composition? Aleatory music? Stockhausen and Schoenberg did really make me feel something? Or pop music with cliché harmonies consisting mostly of chords I, IV and V written by greedy producers did? Of course I like to study and to read and to gather knowledge, but about the things I have to know and the things I want to know, I don't want to know anything just to pose as erudite. I don't need to know everything. This was a liberation to me. If they don't need to know about penguins nor want, why? Why don't leave them to study about the penguins when or if they have a test about it? If their biology teacher comes and says "Now the subject is penguins", ok, THEN the knowledge will turn into something relevant, into something they need, and THEN they'll study that, but why do they need to know that in that exact minute Cory asked? Know just to know? What was the point of asking the question in that moment, was it just to make the kids unconfortable? It really makes me feel bad when I see people trying to make people feel guilty about going to their homes and have some basic fun and such. I dislike when people make someone feel like someone is losing its time if this person is not doing something from work, from school, from college, gathering knowledge, working out... Nobody should be ashamed of not being interested in something. When someone says something like "How many books did you read this year? What? Only that? You should be ashamed!" it's exactly that they're doing, and that's exactly the same thing Mr. Matthews did in the episode. The society make people feel like knowing about penguins, role learning knowing the capitals of US, reading Tolstoi is useful, but it's not necessarily it. It can be, for someone who loves literature reading Tolstoi is useful, for someone that has a test about it also, for someone who is a English major... but, if it's not the case, one can live without it. If Cory was allowed to say his mind without being gentle, he would be saying something like: "Oh, you should be ashamed of wasting your time having fun, you should be doing something useful!" Well, I'd have to disagree with that, for me having fun is much more useful than penguins or capitals. This is a form of social control. About commonism, if you want I'd be pleased to debate it with you, but to make it quick let's just say that they make everything the US is politically look amazing by establishing a false dilemma that forces Riley to choose between commonism and "free, amazing, lovely" American way of life. They don't make a good critical analysis of both sides or provide accurate information about politics, nor say that there are other options, like Walfare state. Commonism being horrible is just a straw man argument to make the "free land" look amazing without even teaching this kids what the other side really is, they don't even start to talk about free market economy. When Michelle Obama appeared on iCarly, Cyma Zarghami said a million times that I didn't have anything to do with political affiliations, though we know it actually has. But she was a least trying to hide it. I know all networks have agendas, but Disney being explicit about these matters scandalized me.